The owners of cargo claimed damages from the carriers for a cargo of jet oil rejected at the port of destination because of contamination suffered on board.
Held: In interpreting the rules, the court must adopt a process of construction which is appropriate to a set of rules agreed internationally and enacted into United Kingdom law. The process is both purposive and practical. The question was whether there had been delivery, or whether a second part of the voyage had been under a varied contract so as to extend the time limit. US case law suggests that an important question in deciding that question is whether the delivery was made under an entirely separate and distinct transaction. The question should be the broad one, whether in all the circumstances of the case the delivery was ‘delivery’ within the rule. There was delivery of the goods within the meaning of Article III Rule 6 at thesecond port. The oil was the same jet oil, the problem leading to the second voyage was the same for both shipper and cargo owner, and the second voyage arose from the charterparty. The claim was not therefore out of time.
Judges:
Lord Justice Kay Lord Justice Clarke The Vice Vice-Chancellor
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 664, Times 03-Jun-2003, Gazette 10-Jul-2003
Links:
Statutes:
Hague-Visby Rules Article III Rule 6
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – The Ot Sonja CA 1993
The time limit under the Rules applied where goods had not been loaded and that time would start to run from the date when the goods ought to have been delivered. . .
Cited – Aries Tanker Corp v Total Transport Ltd; The Aries HL 1977
Claims for freight charges are an exception to the general rule that all claims between parties must be resolved in one action. A claim for freight cannot be a claim ‘on the same grounds’ as a counter-claim for loss or damage arising out of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182219